I would like to talk about the Trust-O-Meter™.

     The Trust-O-Meter™ gives a pretty good indication of how much I am going to trust something.  There are good things, which tend to inspire trust.  And there are bad things which tend to reduce or eliminate trust.

     One of the great things that you can do that will inspire trust is to provide links.  If I can verify what you say for myself, I am more likely to trust you on other matters.  (Some caution is necessary.  If I think a link is suspicious, it won’t help.  Worse, if you make claims about A, B, and C that I know to exist but don’t know the claims as true and X, Y, and Z that I have never heard of and only provide links for the X, Y, and Z claims, it will actually move you down.)  Another good thing is to correctly report something I already know but which you don’t know I already know.  Also good is to admit when you are wrong.

     One bad thing that you can do is only to link to yourself or your supporters.  If you tell me that some prominent person said X, I want a link to his website saying X or a video of him saying X.  Now, I realize that sometimes there is a game of “hide the evidence.”  But you and your supporters linking to each other to make the claim just doesn’t help anything.  Moderating comments is a big red flag.  While there are occasionally reasons to moderate comments, the purpose is usually better served by removing derailing or disruptive comments after the fact.  If you are screening comments before anyone can see them, there is a good chance you are throwing away the inconvenient ones.  Getting caught in a lie is a great way to hurt your credibility.  That goes double if you lie about the very people you are trying to convince.

     Then there are things which ensure that you will have no credibility whatsoever.  Calling dissenters “X deniers” is a fine example.  Presuppositional Baloney operates on this.  You can also create an echo chamber.  When there are a lot of comments, but no dissent, something is wrong.  However, it is sometimes good to test this by leaving a dissenting comment and seeing what happens to it.  Incidentally, creating “straw dissenters” whose purpose is to be obviously absurd is not of any help.  If you play a game of “hide the evidence” your credibility is gone.  If you used to have a website but you took it down because you couldn’t handle criticism (especially links proving you said something inconvenient) then everyone that knows you did that will never trust you.

Advertisements

37 thoughts on “I would like to talk about the Trust-O-Meter™.

  1. No, it’s about evidence. Define the characteristics of your god, and I’ll provide evidence against them.

  2. Exactly!! Because your worldview will not allow for God.

    “In fact, that cannot be evidence for God if he is a naturalist, or an atheist. Because according to him its not possible to have evidence for God. If he is in fact an atheist in terms of his views on reality, then all of these things must be reinterpreted so they are regimented, or will conform to, will comport with that man’s naturalism, or atheism.”

  3. Dan:

         Of course it is about evidence. And you don’t have any. However, I apply the same standard to those who say “evolution denier,” “patriarchy denier,” and “holocaust denier.” It is an attempt to stigmatize dissent. And that is dishonest.
         It is hardly my fault that Presuppositional Baloney fits the criterion. I have held the criterion longer than I have heard about Presuppositional Baloney.

  4. Your “tell” is you saying that I do not have any evidence. Of course there is evidence, just nothing you’re willing to accept. That is why you’re called a denier, because of the very apparent worldview position. You must deny even that the Bible exists. Of course it does, but you cannot accept what it says, because it conflicts with your worldview. You probably deny that too. If you’re intellectually honest, you would have to acknowledge the content as evidence, as it written as an historical narrative, and makes such claims and proves it internally.

    Maybe you can clarify what you mean by “evidence”, to bolster your position.

    Infinite regress is the reason why certain things can be denied, our dismissed. You know that. There is zero infinite regress with God. God is simply self-validating. Let me guess, you’re going to DENY that?

    Is it possible that evolution is wrong? Of course it can. So where is the complaints coming from? I can answer that question for you if you wish.

  5. Dan:

         When people call you an “evolution denier” and claim that evolution is “so obviously true,” how impressed are you? The act of calling someone a “denier” is an act of intellectual dishonesty. And christianity is not an exception.

  6. Valid point. I see your point more now. Just understand, that many of the Atheists we (I) know, do act this way. They presuppose their Atheism and their naturalism (which is the real issue here) . Then search for evidence proclaimed by like minded people, scientists, to prop up their beliefs. No matter how wrong it is.

    So, once again, we’re talking about worldviews here, certainly not the evidence. The data is the same, Grand Canyon as an example, they see billions of years of slow erosion, we see rapid erosion by a worldwide flood. Same with evolution. The worldview determines interpretation of data. I can certainly provide evidence against naturalism, but it gets rejected outright. The reverse is not the case though. Naturalism is the paradigm, and assumed. That is why we cannot convince, or change, people’s worldviews. That is the Holy Spirit’s job.

  7. Dan:

         “Naturalism is the paradigm, and assumed.”
         One might say, “presupposed.” And that is the problem I have with what you write. You just assume christianity and then say you’ve given evidence when you haven’t. You talk a great deal about worldviews but you do not accurately model the worldviews of others. People who do not believe the bible will not see bible verses as evidence of its claims being true. You only regard it as evidence because you assume christianity.
         You cannot convince because you do not present evidence. Back when I used Blogger, I gave an example of something I would recognize as evidence (haven’t seen it yet.) That upset you because you claim the bible should be enough. Essentially, you don’t give evidence. You just want everybody to assume christianity is true.

  8. 1st…
    Atheism is not a worldview. Neither is theism. Both are merely statements of knowledge.
    Secular Humanism is a worldview. Christianity is a worldview. Both reflect our behavior and our interpretation of our experiences.
    So comparing Christianity to atheism is meaningless.

    2nd…
    The Bible is not a historical narrative. It contains none of the requirements of a narrative, and is in fact glaringly wrong on many known historical facts. The Bible is personal testimony, nothing more and nothing less. As such, it’s writing was subject to the same subjective influences as any other personal testimony, plus it has all the added ideological influences of those who’ve edited it since it was written. Its not even 1st hand testimony, so it is also subject to all the influences of any evolving urban myth. Even so, it might be taken as somewhat reliable where it not for the fact that the stories glarinly contradict one another and are factually incorrect on many points. This is why the Bible is not taken as evidence. It has nothing to do with a worldview, and everything to do with a critical examination of the source.

    3rd…
    God is only self-validating because you define him that way. Your definition of god does nothing to prove his existence.

    4th…
    Atheism can, and should, be presupposed. It is the neutral stance. Much like innocence is presupposed in a court of law. Naturalism is not a presupposition. It is a conclusion based on individual and shared experiences, as well as rigourous and disciplined studies and experimentation.

    5th…
    Scientists have a model of erosion for the Grand Canyon which explains the facts and makes accurate predictions. As a hypothesis, Young Earth theory fails to explain certain features of the canyon, and does not make successful predictions. This is why Young Earth theories are rejected. On their merits, not on their conclusions.

    Long story short: Christianity is pre-suppositional. Science is evidential. If you knew anything about the scientific method, you’d know that the first step in testing any theory is to ASSUME THAT IT IS INCORRECT. That completely rules out presupposition.

  9. >> People who do not believe the bible will not see bible verses as evidence of its claims being true. You only regard it as evidence because you assume christianity.

    OK, So anything rejected renders what is being presented as evidence, as invalid? This is really your position? Does that work on both sides of that coin?

    1. There is no such thing as an “honest truth-seeker” who denies God, as their denial is itself dishonest (Romans 1:18-21).

    2. I would not use any evidence to convince anyone of something which Scripture says they already know. Evidence is presented to the judge and jury, and I will not elevate the unbeliever to that status and put God on trial.

    Also, asking for evidence for God is like asking for evidence of the sun at noon, using a flashlight.

  10. Bruce,

    1. Your straw man is obvious. No one here said a worldview is atheism. A worldview can certainly be atheistic though. Howard huge difference.

    2. How do you know your reasoning is valid?

    3. God is the only possible source for the mission you’re using. God revealed that everyone knows He exists, He created the world. He revealed that His existence is necessary for knowledge, ethics, aesthetics, etc. So you’re making an implicitly positive claim by saying you do not believe He exists, and therefore you own a burden of proof.

    4. Naturalism is certainly NOT a neutral position. To say it is, is completely disingenuous.

    >>Young Earth theory fails to explain certain features of the canyon, and does not make successful predictions.

    5. How ironic! Do you have any evidence for that bare assertion of yours. Our are bald assertions allowable for just you?

    6. Science is not evidence when it takes the philosophical position of naturalism as its paradigm.

  11. 1. Your strawman is a strawman. I never claimed anyone claimed a worldview is atheism.

    2. I don’t assume my reasoning is valid. Science does not assume that individual reasoning is valid. That is why it demands replication and rigorous testing and verification.

    3. “God is the only possible source for the mission you’re using.” That sentence doesn’t even make sense.
    “God revealed…blah blah blah.” Can you PROVE any of those assertions? I didn’t think so.
    “So you’re making an implicitly positive claim by saying you do not believe He exists, and therefore you own a burden of proof.” Didn’t I offer to give such proof in my very first post? The offer still stands.

    4. Hello? Hello? I didn’t say naturalism was a neutral position? I said the EXACT OPPOSITE? Did you even take the time to carefully read my post? Try again.

    5. Yes. I do. For the canyon to have been carved out in one stupendous cataclysmic flood would have required water speeds that could not have created the sharp curves and bends that are seen in the canyon. Fast sudden deluges travel in roughly straight lines. Slow, persistent flows form meandering curves. This is basic Earth Science, and can be observed in river and flood plain formation today.

    6. Science is not evidence? Of course science is not evidence. You have no clue what science actually is, do you? None at all. Science is a process. A methodology. It is not “evidence”.

    “Also, asking for evidence for God is like asking for evidence of the sun at noon, using a flashlight.”
    Absolutely false. The scientific model we have for the sun makes successful and verifiable predictions. You can’t say the same thing for your god hypothesis. Your analogy fails completely.

  12. “OK, So anything rejected renders what is being presented as evidence, as invalid? ”
    If you can’t take the time to write a coherent sentence, we can’t hold an intelligent discussion with you. Please don’t ask us to argue against assertions that are poorly and ambiguously phrased.

  13. Dan:

         If you are trying to convince someone of something, you have to start from mutually agreed facts. Your claim that the bible is “evidence” is based on an assumption that you wish to impose unilaterally. Before you can use the bible as evidence for its claims, you must first establish its accuracy. But you don’t try to do that. You just quote more bible verses.

         You bring up the sun. Well, I can point at the sun. You can see it directly. Point at your god. If I see it with my own eyes, I will be impressed. But you hem and haw and make excuses. And still, I do not see your god. Your god is not like the sun. I can see the sun. I don’t need faith.

  14. Bruce,

    >>Can you PROVE any of those assertions? I didn’t think so.

    You absolutely certain I can’t? God has revealed Himself to EVERYONE, and that this is exposed with every truth claim, every knowledge claim, and even every rational thought you have.

    That being said, Proof presupposes the absoluteness of truth. One cannot prove a falsehood. It also must be known, because one cannot prove what one does not know. It also must be logical because without logic, no proof could make sense.

    So what does a belief in truth, knowledge, and logic assume? They assume God.

  15. Pvblivs,

    >> Before you can use the bible as evidence for its claims, you must first establish its accuracy.

    Bible is true because it first makes the claim that it is true, proves itself internally, AND denial of the truth of the Bible leads to absurdity. God also reveals the truth of His Word to us directly such that we can be certain of it.

    >> Point at your god. If I see it with my own eyes, I will be impressed.But you hem and haw and make excuses. And still, I do not see your god.

    Again, see first point:

    1. There is no such thing as an “honest truth-seeker” who denies God, as their denial is itself dishonest (Romans 1:18-21).

    >>Your god is not like the sun. I can see the sun.

    We say that all evidence is evidence of God, even one’s very ability to reason about evidence. So, if you’re saying you cannot identify your own reasoning, then you may have a point. 🙂

  16. Dan:

         Again, your response just starts from the assumption that the bible is true. You would not accept “proves itself internally” for any book you did not already accept as true.
         In fact, the bible is not accurate. There are honest truth-seekers that do not believe in your god. You quote a passage, written my men, designed to get followers not to listen to outsiders.
         “We say that all evidence is evidence of [g]od, even one’s very ability to reason about evidence.”
         Which means that either you have no understanding of what evidence is or you are lying through your teeth. Back to the sun example. I don’t need to say that “all evidence is evidence of the sun.” I can point at the sun. And I can see it directly. Indeed, your complaint about naturalism is that they use the same technique you do. Based on your statements, they say that all evidence is evidence against your god, even your very ability to reason about evidence. It is not reasonable when (if) they do it. And it is not reasonable when you do it.

  17. “>>Can you PROVE any of those assertions? I didn’t think so.”
    Hmmm…the only assertion I made in may last post was in point #5, and yes that assertion is provable. Fast flowing water does not carve meandering paths. You (or I) can do an experiment that proves this. So think again.

    “One cannot prove a falsehood.”
    Incorrect. Some things can be proved to be false.

    “It also must be known, because one cannot prove what one does not know.”
    Another nonsense sentence. If you want a response, phrase your statement sensibly.

    “So what does a belief in truth, knowledge, and logic assume? They assume God.”
    I don’t have a “belief” in truth, or knowledge. I have confidence in them. Logic, however, exists independently of any deity. As William Lane Craig has state, you cannot ask God to make a square circle, or married bachelor, or to create a stone so massive that he cannot lift it, because these things are not logically possible. The concept of God, therefore, is limited by logic.
    So neither truth, nor knowledge, nor logic assume God.

    pvblivs: You need to understand that Dan is a pure presuppositionalist. His simple two-step argument is:
    1. Assume God exists.
    2. Therefor, God exists.
    This is why presuppositionalism is limited to only the most willfully ignorant of apologists.
    If you point this out, the presuppositionalist’s defense is to claim that naturalism is also presuppositionalist. It’s the “I know you are, but what am I” tactic. It fails, of course, because the scientific method requires beginning with the assumption that the hypothesis is false, which is the polar opposite of presuppositionalism, but this is the only tactic in their playbook.

  18. >>The concept of God, therefore, is limited by logic.

    Are you dyslexic?

    >> His simple two-step argument is: 1. Assume God exists. 2. Therefor, God exists.

    You do not even understand presuppositional apologetics? God is PRESUPPOSED, not assumed. Do to the impossibility of the contrary, as you’re providing plenty of evidence to support here.

  19. Dan:

         “God is PRESUPPOSED, not assumed.”
         Two words, same meaning.
         “[Due] to the impossibility of the contrary”
         If you could actually establish that a world like we see but in which your god does not exist were impossible, you would have no need of Presuppositional Baloney. You would instead show how the assumption of “no christian god” leads to a contradiction. But you don’t. It doesn’t lead to a contradiction. Or, at least none of the Presuppositional Liars has ever been able to identify such a contradiction.

  20. I beg your pardon Dan!

    The (revised) simple two-step argument is:
    1. Presuppose God exists.
    2. Therefor, God exists.

    Wow Dan! That makes a HUGE difference!
    Oh, wait…it doesn’t: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/presuppose?s=t
    pre·sup·pose [pree-suh-pohz]
    verb
    1. to suppose or assume beforehand; take for granted in advance.

    You are truly scraping the bottom of the desperation barrel now, Dan.

    Regarding your dyslexia comment. Either you don’t know what the disorder is, or you’ve been reduced to name-calling.
    You stated that a belief in logic assumes god. I proved that it does not. No dyslexia required.

  21. >>You would instead show how the assumption of “no christian god” leads to a contradiction. But you don’t.

    But we do, and have. Remember Mike Felker who said, The Christian worldview is the only one with an epistemological foundation. Thus, your statement about “uncertainty” fails because without the Christian God, the alternative results in rational absurdity and contradiction (since there is no longer a basis for rationality). This is why we speak of the “impossibility of the contrary.”

    Sye pointed out, [Sye commentary removed as Sye is a habitual liar.]

    So you’re ignoring what is being said.

    “When an apologist attempts to be autonomous in his reasoned argumentation he indicates that he considers God to be less certain than his own existence and that he places greater credence in his independent reasoning than in God’s Word.” ~Greg L. Bahnsen, Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended

    “To reason with the non-Christian in a fashion purporting to be independent of God or independent of reliance upon revelation is to honor the unregenerate’s notions of “evidence” and “verification” as legitimate and correct. However, for the Christian, it is Scripture that governs *every* aspect of his life, even his concept of “evidence” and the way he reasons with skeptics.” ~Greg L. Bahnsen, Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended

    “To reject revelational epistemology is to commit yourself to defending the truth of autonomous epistemology.” ~Greg L. Bahnsen, Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended

    So, once again, how do you know your reasoning is valid?

  22. Mike Felker is incorrect.
    Having an epistemological foundation is not sufficient. It must be a correct epistemological foundation. I can claim that knowledge stems from quantum fluctuations in an extra-universal ether. It’s an epistemological foundation, but likely fanciful. Good luck proving the Christian god is the correct foundation.

    Sye is incorrect.
    As I showed above, God is separate from logic. Even God cannot do the logically impossible.
    My worldviews do not conflict with logic, so you’ll have to deal with that first if you wish to make this argument.

  23.      “But we do, and have.”
         No Dan, you don’t. You demand that others account for their ability to account for things without using their ability to account for things and invoke special pleading for yourself. (And, yes, saying “revelation” over and over is still special pleading.)
         “(since there is no longer a basis for rationality)”
         There is no basis for rationality under any worldview. You need to use rationality to form a basis for anything. In any system, something is at the bottom, unsupported by anything else.
         Sye is a habitual liar and what he says is rejected outright.

  24. >>My worldviews do not conflict with logic, so you’ll have to deal with that first if you wish to make this argument.

    O’rly? The laws of logic are universal, how can an atheist know anything to be universally true? The laws of logic are invariant, how do unchanging entities make sense in a constantly changing universe? The laws of logic are not made of matter, how do things which are not made of matter make sense in ANY atheistic worldview?

    It’s not that atheists cannot explain why logic is valid, it is that they profess worldviews that simply do not comport with universal, abstract, invariant entities such as the laws of logic. They are doing something, which, if their worldview were true, would be impossible for them to do, and THAT is the contradiction.

  25. >>You demand that others account for their ability to account for things without using their ability to account for things and invoke special pleading for yourself. (And, yes, saying “revelation” over and over is still special pleading.)

    I know my reasoning is valid about certain things because it conforms to God’s revelation, we are made in His image, that our “sound mind” has been revealed. (2 Timothy 1:7, Romans 12:2 , Philippians 2:13, Ephesians 4:14 ) Your turn, how do you know?

    No matter how many reasons you give to validate your reasoning your still assuming your reasoning is valid.

    >> In any system, something is at the bottom, unsupported by anything else.

    You certain? Does that include your “unsupported” system?

    In the end, you can display your prejudicial conjecture all you want. You’re free to do so. Praise God.

  26. Dan:

         You fail. You, again, say “revelation.” This is already identified as special pleading. But, also important, you use your reasoning to conclude that it “conforms to revelation.” In short, you do the same thing you accuse me of. You use your reasoning to validate your reasoning. You, too, assume that your reasoning is valid.

  27. Y’Rly!
    The laws of logic aren’t “universal”. They’re abstract and transendental.
    Unchanging entities are perfectly compatible with a changing universe. There is nothing in the concept of a changing universe which demands that all portions or attributes of it change. You can have one molecule careening through an otherwise static universe, and it is a changing universe. Do you even think about these things before you write them? Do you bother attempting to anticipate what someone might say to refute them?
    If you are going to assert that the laws of matter don’t make sense in ANY atheistic worldview, then you’ll need to demonstrate the basis for your argument. You’ll need to prove that ALL atheist worldviews “simply do not comport with universal, abstract, invariant entities such as the laws of logic.” Good luck with that.

    Regarding your other comment “I know my reasoning is valid about certain things because it conforms to God’s revelation”: You don’t “know” that your reasoning is valid. You have “faith” that it is, but that faith is not based on any knowledge. Or logic or reasoning for that matter.

    The mere fact that where a skeptic is willing to say “I don’t know” a presuppositionalist asserts objective truth really says more about the quality of presuppositionalist than it says about the quality of his arguments.

    And lastly, I must correct you (once again): the scientific method, and skepticism in general, is not prejudicial. It starts by assuming that a given theory is unsupported, rather than assuming that it is correct and seeking confirmation. That is the OPPOSITE of prejudicial, and the OPPOSITE of presupposition. If you learn nothing else from this exchange, I hope you at least manage to grasp this concept.

  28. >>It starts by assuming that a given theory is unsupported, rather than assuming that it is correct and seeking confirmation.

    You certain of that? How ironic you barely assert this.

    “The peer review system does not always detect fraud, plagiarism, poor quality or gross error and there is editorial reluctance to correct errors or to publish criticisms of sacred cows or ‘controversial’ or nonconformist views of skeptics and dissident minorities.” ~http://bit.ly/3gUcsN

  29. Yes, I’m certain of that. It’s not a logical proposition, but rather definitional.

    Your quote is a rather silly red herring. It reflects only on the short-term accuracy of the scientific method (which even under that constraint is highly accurate), and does not pertain to the issue of its non-prejudice and non-presuppositional nature. Taken out of context (as you have done) the quote is false, because science is self-correcting by virtue of it’s non-dogmatic nature.

    Care to be wrong some more?

  30. >> Taken out of context [not evidenced, barely asserted] (as you have done) the quote is false [not evidenced, barely asserted], because science is self-correcting by virtue of it’s non-dogmatic nature [not evidenced, barely asserted] . Care to be wrong some more?

    How ironic! I make a claim and back it up with EVIDENCE, and you counter it with fallacious barely asserted claim. I think we’re through here.

    Salvation is not just for the next life Bruce – Not only did Christ’s death and resurrection save souls for eternity, it saves our reasoning now. Again, I beg you to repent and turn from rejecting the God you know exists, and accept the free gift of Jesus Christ’s payment for your sins, so that you might be saved from Hell, spend an eternity with God, AND have a firm foundation for your reasoning NOW.

  31. You keep using that term “barely asserted”. Either something is asserted, or it is not. Things can’t be “barely” asserted. Did you lift that phrase from Sye?
    As I have pointed out SEVERAL TIMES, the non-dogmatic nature of the scientific method is definitional. It is neither asserted nor evidential.
    I’m sorry to say this, but you’re not smart enough to be Sye Ten Bruggencate. But don’t feel too bad about that, because even Sye Ten Bruggencate isn’t smart enough to be Sye Ten Bruggencate.
    You say you’ve made a claim and backed it up with “EVIDENCE”. Where? A cursory glance through your posts, and I can’t see where you’ve cited any evidence at all. Your arguments have been purely deductive. Please show me what evidence you were referring to.
    Regarding your last paragraph, when I consider how consistently wrong you have been over the last few days, why should I grant any credibility to your claims regarding Jesus?
    This is your life, Dan. This is what we have. Live it to the fullest. Don’t live it in servitude. Don’t be a slave to other people’s dogma. Don’t buy into the hate, bigotry, and exploitation of organized religion. Don’t waste a sizable portion of your allotted life pursuing the delusions of illiterate bronze-age nomads. Embrace life, embrace knowledge, embrace your neighbors.
    “Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it?” -Douglas Adams.

  32. >>You keep using that term “barely asserted”. Either something is asserted, or it is not. Things can’t be “barely” asserted. Did you lift that phrase from Sye?

    No, your reasoning is wrong yet again, I got it from Ipse dixit. You might want to look it up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipse_dixit

    >>As I have pointed out SEVERAL TIMES, the non-dogmatic nature of the scientific method is definitional.

    Irrelevant thesis now. The conversations we are having is ALL about worldviews, not science. I’m pointing out your inconsistency in your application of your worldview. The atheist is the one who claims one worldview, yet operates on another.

    >>You say you’ve made a claim and backed it up with “EVIDENCE”. Where?

    “The peer review system does not always detect fraud, plagiarism, poor quality or gross error and there is editorial reluctance to correct errors or to publish criticisms of sacred cows or ‘controversial’ or nonconformist views of skeptics and dissident minorities.” ~http://bit.ly/3gUcsN

    To which you BARELY asserted:

    >> Taken out of context [Knowledge claim not evidenced, barely asserted] (as you have done) the quote is false [Knowledge claim not evidenced, barely asserted], because science is self-correcting by virtue of it’s non-dogmatic nature [Knowledge claim not evidenced, barely asserted] . Care to be wrong some more?

    You caught up yet?

    >>I’m sorry to say this, but you’re not smart enough to be Sye Ten Bruggencate. But don’t feel too bad about that, because even Sye Ten Bruggencate isn’t smart enough to be Sye Ten Bruggencate.

    You can display your prejudicial conjecture all you want. You’re free to do so. Praise God.

    >>“Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it?” -Douglas Adams.

    Straw man – FTW? http://youtu.be/FskxO5PaUgI

  33.      “The atheist is the one who claims one worldview, yet operates on another.”
         No evidence has been presented to this effect.

  34. ” ;The atheist is the one who claims one worldview, yet operates on another.’
    No evidence has been presented to this effect.”
    He’s “barely asserting” it, which is all part of the “I know you are but what am I” presuppositionalist strategy.

  35. Dan, I have not “barely asserted” the nature of the scientific method. I have tried to point out that its nature is contained within its definition. You don’t seem to be able to grasp this concept, no matter how simple I try to make it.

    ” I’m pointing out your inconsistency in your application of your worldview. The atheist is the one who claims one worldview, yet operates on another. ”
    You are “barely asserting” this. Where is your proof? And again, you are incorrectly referring to atheism as a worldview, another conceptual mistake you steadfastly refuse to correct.

    Yes, your quote was taken out of context. (I did not “barely assert” it.) The quote was referring to peer revue, not the scientific method in general. And on its own, the quote itself is “barely asserted”, since the entire article (which presumably contains critiquable support) is not available. Contrary to your quote, the peer review DOES detect fraud, plagiarism, poor quality, and gross error. Here’s an example: http://www.realclearscience.com/2011/12/06/cold_fusion_scam_exposed_again_244371.html
    So guess what Dan? You were wrong again. Was that really the best support you had? Was that really what you are claiming as “evidence”? Sad.

  36. A quote (not research)
    From a summary (not an article)
    Of some paper (unavailable)
    Regarding peer review (not the entire scientific method)
    Which was factually incorrect (we are surrounded by the products of scientific success and self-correction).
    I still can’t believe that’s what you considered evidence.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s